In what his campaign is billing as a major policy speech, Mitt Romney will unveil an energy plan Thursday that would give states the power to determine whether drilling should occur on federal lands within their borders as part of a larger effort to increase domestic oil production and achieve energy independence.

Under current law, the federal government controls oil and gas permits for federal lands. But in a speech at an oilfield services company in Hobbs. N.M., Romney will argue that determination should be up to state officials, insisting individual states are in a better position to "develop, adopt and enforce regulations" on local basis than the federal government--which his campaign says has been unduly influenced by Washington politics.

A policy paper released ahead of the candidate's speech by the Romney campaign argues President Barack Obama "has intentionally sought to shut down oil, gas and coal production in pursuit of his own alternative energy agenda."

In his speech, Romney will contend that loosening regulations on the energy industry will benefit taxpayers by lowering gas costs and reducing the cost of consumer goods, which have increased as companies pay higher energy prices. He'll argue that allowing more federal drilling will not only bring money back into the nation's budget but would result in lower energy prices that could create jobs, lower the trade deficit and increase the nation's security.

...

The push is part of what Romney will tout as effort to achieve energy independence by 2020, a plan that also includes expanding offshore energy development along the coast of Virginia and North and South Carolina as well as approval of the Keystone energy pipeline linking Canada to the United States.

Nuclear plants require a lot of government involvement in areas of insurance and loan guarantees. They are very expensive and take a long time to build. Fossil fuels are the most economical way to go for the foreseeable future.

3
posted on 08/22/2012 9:21:41 PM PDT
by Moonman62
(The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)

Fast-tracking several new nuke power plants projects wouldnt hurt either.

I very much doubt that it's possible to "fast-track" a nuke plant.

There are so many legal roadblocks the enviros can erect and delaying tactics they can employ that a wholesale re-writing of the environmental laws and regulations would probably be required to make another nuclear plant even remotely feasible.

A few years ago, the ultra-left documentary maker Ken Burns released "The National Parks: America's Best Idea". Not surprisingly, it was featured on government-run PBS, the Propaganda Broadcasting Service. Unlike Burns' characterization, this land grab of territory by progressive Teddy Roosevelt was nothing but socialism. A good idea? A resounding NO!

Private enterprise serves as a far better steward than the federal government of this acreage. And with our need for domestic energy, what is now a socialized land mass would be much better served by drilling.

7
posted on 08/22/2012 9:39:54 PM PDT
by re_nortex
(DP...that's what I like about Texas.)

I'd also like to see Romney advocate developing next-generation nuclear power such as the molten-salt reactor that uses thorium-232 dissolved in molten sodium fluoride salts as nuclear fuel (this reactor is often called the liquid fluoride thorium reactor, or LFTR).

Given the huge reserves of thorium we have in the USA, developing LFTR technology to maturity and building over 100 1,000 MW LFTR reactor plants means not only hundreds of thousands of high-paying engineering and construction jobs, but also means a dramatic reduction in the need for imported petroleum products and a huge leap up in electric generating capacity, which makes it possible for a major means to reduce air pollution: electrifying all the major long-distance railroad lines in the USA. And unlike large-scale wind and solar power installations, LFTR plants are no threats to large scale bird migration you get from large wind farms and no excessive need for land like what solar power installations require.

Somehow, I can't envision this in North Dakota, for instance. (Yes, there is a major E/W BNSF line here.) Between voltage drop, the hazards of weather, and the potential loss of livestock, I don't see that happening with better results than the current diesel electric locomotives.

13
posted on 08/23/2012 5:43:51 AM PDT
by Smokin' Joe
(How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)

Westport and Caterpillar Inc. have agreed to co-develop natural gas technology for off-road equipment. While the agreements initially focus on engines used in mining trucks and locomotives, the companies will also develop natural gas technology for Caterpillar’s off-road engines

I remember using propane engines on drilling rigs (Waukesha) to power the rig. I would imagine they could be on top of development for similar engines for locomotives fueled by natural gas. They performed much like their diesel counterparts (usually Caterpillar or GMC).

19
posted on 08/23/2012 11:01:02 AM PDT
by Smokin' Joe
(How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.